In the short term, this allows people to cultivate and harvest enough food for every individual and thus the forestry industry tremendously impacts the economy.

1. Small note - "economy" should be "the economy"

2. Grammatically other than "the economy", this sentence is fine, but logically it's a bit unclear. It makes sense that clearing land for food would impact the economy, but is the author's argument that this is a positive or negative impact?

He argues that the author has not considered the long term consequences of these reckless actions.

For instance, the majority of Rrainforests in Brazil have been cut down, and therefore this ecosystem is inat risk of disappearing.

Not sure if "in risk" is incorrect, but "at risk" sounds better to me.

The lecturer asserts that there are other types of farming which do not endanger the ecosystem at such a large scale.

I think the original is grammatically fine, just a stylistic edit.

He mentions that Hhydroponic farming can produce a substantial amount of food, and it would leverage the advantages of technology.

It's worth specifying what technology and what advantages; maybe rephrase to emphasize how modern technology would make the process easier or more efficient.

(i.e: "...amount of food, bringing modern techniques to farming to increase crop yields and reduce environmental impact.")

Secondly, not only are cleared areas used for farming, but they authore also considered as residential places, asserts the authorasserts that they are also residential areas.

"Residential areas" sounds better than "residential places" but it's not incorrect either way.

"..., asserts the author." is fine grammatically but sounds better to me when reordered.

Nevertheless, the lecturer mentions that, even if the cleared surfaces are used forland is used to build new residential areaces, deforestation notoriously impacts an ecosystem by causing animal displacements.

"Cleared surface" makes sense but doesn't really work to describe cleared land.

Not sure if "animal displacements" or "animal displacement" is better.

I see why you used "residential places" above, since you used "residential areas" here; you could just say "residences" as a way to avoid repeating "residential areas," but again none of these choices are wrong.

Moreover, he says that 20% of the oxygen is produced by Rrainforests.

The oxygen of what? The global atmosphere? It's worth specifying.

As a result, deforestation is reducting the amount of breathable air since many individuals are trying to getmake more money selling houses in the cleared lands.

However, the speaker asserts that the beaforementioned nations are developing countries and hence they are paging low wages to the employees, while abusing them.

To conclude, the lecturer completely differsagrees with the arguments given throughout the reading.

I don't think you can "differ" with an argument you disagree with; your arguments can differ from each other, but a person can only disagree with arguments.

In the short term, this allows people to cultivate and harvest enough food for every individual and thus the forestry industry tremendously impacts the economy in a positive way.

For instance, the majority of Rrainforests in Brazil have been cut down, and so therefore this ecosystem is inat risk of disappearingfor extinction.

The lecturer asserts that there are other types of farming which do not endanger the ecosystem aton such a large scale.

He mentions that Hhydroponic farming can produce a substantial amount of food, and it would leverage the advantages of technology.

Secondly, not only are cleared areas used for farming, but they are also can be considered viable as residential splaces, asserts the author.

Nevertheless, the lecturer mentions that, even if the cleared surfaces are used for new residential areas, deforestation notoriously impacts an ecosystem adversely by causing animal displacements.

Moreover, he says that 20% of the oxygen in the world is produced by Rrainforests.

Finally, the writer suggests that the forestry industry is a huge part of many national economies like those of Brazil, Thailand, and Indonesia.

However, tThe speaker asserts, however, that the beaforementioned nations are developing countries and hence they are pagingpay low wages to the employees, while abusing them at the same time.

Thus, neither employees nor national economies are bereceiving benefiteds by this industry.

To conclude, the lecturer completely differsagrees with the arguments given throughout the reading.